On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 10:22  PM, Fredrik Murman wrote:

> I guess that one of the things you're trying to say, Tom, by directing
> us
> to that arti
> cle, is that the paleo-model "needs to be absolutely bared in
> objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it
> needs to
> be flexible".
>
> Fredrik

Paleo eating is not "scientific" because it can not be falsified. We
can never be sure because we can not test its assumptions. We can not
go back in time to see exactly what our ancestors ate, so we have to
use Occam's Razor and hope for the best. But yes, to the extent I can,
I try to rely on verifiable science, rationality. I agree with most of
what this article says.

By the way, the science on second hand smoke is pretty tenuous,
depending on very weak statistical links. About as many trials show no
link to observable harm as show this weak link. I figure that for
practical purposes second hand smoke is something I can ignore. It is
more likely that you have a personal allergy to something in the smoke,
nicotine perhaps. I personally don't like it either, but I doubt it is
a danger to most people.